Strategic Management in Public Administration PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/337472823
Strategic Management in Public Administration
Chapter · January 2020

DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.139
CITATIONS READS
46 73,055
2 authors:
John Bryson Bert George

University of Minnesota Twin Cities City University of Hong Kong
119 PUBLICATIONS 14,211 CITATIONS 73 PUBLICATIONS 1,510 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Goal Theory View project
Strategy, Strategic Planning and Strategic Management in Public Administration View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Bert George on 01 April 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


John Bryson and Bert George
Subject: Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy Online Publication Date: Mar 2020
DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1396
Summary and Keywords
Strategic management is an approach to strategizing by public organizations or other en

tities that integrates strategy formulation and implementation, and typically includes
strategic planning to formulate strategies, ways of implementing strategies, and continu
ous strategic learning. Strategic management can help public organizations or other enti
ties achieve important goals and create public value.
Strategy is what links capabilities and aspirations. Four broad types of strategists (as in
dividuals, teams, organizations, and collaborations) in public administration exist: the re
actor (low aspirations, low capabilities), the dreamer (high aspirations, low capabilities),
the underachiever (low aspirations, high capabilities) and the savvy strategist (high aspi
rations, high capabilities).
There are eight approaches to strategic planning. More comprehensive process approach
es include those influenced by the Harvard Policy Model, logical incrementalism, and
stakeholder management. More partial process approaches include strategic negotia
tions, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for innova
tion. Finally, two content approaches also exist, namely, portfolio and competitive forces
analyses.
Seven approaches to strategic management systems can be discerned. These include: the
integrated units of management approach (or layered or stacked units of management),
strategic issues management approach, contract approach, collaboration approach (in
cluding the lead organization, shared governance, and network administrative organiza
tion approaches), portfolio management approach, goal or benchmark approach, and hy
brid approaches.
Strategic planning and management are approaches to identifying and addressing chal
lenges. Neither is a single invariant thing but is instead a set of concepts, processes, pro
cedures, tools, techniques, and practices (and structures in the case of strategic manage
ment systems) that must be drawn on selectively and adapted thoughtfully and strategi
cally to specific contexts if they are to help produce desirable results. While there are a
variety of generic approaches to both, the boundaries among them are not necessarily
clear, and strategic planning and management in practice are typically hybridic. Research
Page 1 of 26
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press
USA, 2020. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Le
gal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

is accumulating about which approaches to strategic planning and management work un
der which circumstances, how, and why, but much work remains to be done.
Keywords: strategy, strategizing, strategic planning, strategic management, public management, nonprofit man
agement, public administration and policy
“The coach still sees chances because he sees vision and structure.”
– Louis van Gaal, Head Coach of the Dutch Football Team, World Cup Brazil 2014.1
Introduction
Strategy is omnipresent in government, and many approaches tied to strategy—such as
strategic planning and management—are part of the standard toolbox of public managers
and policymakers (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015). The 21st-century policymaker or public man
ager is indeed confronted with myriad challenges—all of which require effective strate
gies: What is the public value he or she wants to generate? How will he or she do so? And
with whom?
Strategies link aspirations and the capabilities needed to achieve them (Gaddis, 2018).
Strategizing implies the deliberate as well as emergent (re)alignment of aspirations and
capabilities, thus making sure that aspirations can actually be achieved—or else need to
be changed—by taking into account current capabilities and the possible need to develop
new ones. Strategizing is not limited, of course, to single organizations but is relevant to
any entity where aspirations and capabilities need to be aligned (e.g., individuals, teams,
organizations, coalitions, communities).
Assuming the strategy is good, the theory holds that good performance will ensue. In the
example of the Dutch National Football Team (see the epigram), the alignment of vision
(the aspiration to be among the final four teams, despite little belief among Dutch media
that it was possible) and structure or capability (appointing world-class support staff and
carefully considering team composition and alignments under different scenarios) result
ed in a third place finish at the 2014 World Cup, in spite of what many consider a general
ly weak group of players.
Strategic planning and management are specific approaches that can enable effective
strategizing in and by public organizations or other entities (e.g., cross-boundary func
tions, collaborations, communities). Each approach consists of a set of concepts, process
es, procedures, tools, techniques, and practices to be drawn on selectively and tailored to
specific contexts, even as the context itself likely should be changed. Strategic manage
ment also adds characteristic structures to this mix (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015).
Strategic planning can be defined as a deliberate approach to strategy formulation and

typically includes such elements as analyzing the mandate, defining a mission and values,
analyzing the internal and external environment, identifying strategic issues, formulating
Page 2 of 26
gal Notice).

strategies to address issues, and often articulating a vision for the future. Strategic man
agement includes strategic planning but also links it to strategy implementation through,
for instance, organizational design, resource management, performance measurement,
and change management. Elements of both approaches have even been engrained in leg
islative initiatives worldwide, forcing their adoption by public organizations (e.g., the
Government Performance, Results and Modernization Act in the United States, Best Value
in England and Wales, Policy and Management Cycle in Flanders, Belgium).
Despite the clear need for strategy in governments as well as the widespread (and often
coerced) adoption of strategic planning and management by public organizations, these
approaches have not gone without criticism. Many critics base their skepticism on the
sense that strategy as a focus, strategic planning, and strategic management emerged
from the new public management–type thinking in the 1980s and onwards. Hence, strate
gy, strategic planning, and strategic management have often been conflated with con
cepts and practices presumed to be imported from businesses, including efficiency and
effectiveness, market-oriented thinking, and competition—all of which actually have deep
roots in the public sector.
This view is clearly too narrow, given the public and military roots of strategy and its long
history of use in the service of public purposes (Freedman, 2013; Gaddis, 2018). What is
new is the adaptation of various aspects of private-sector experience to public purposes,
which has brought some improvements as well as challenges to public-sector strategizing
(Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015). This article draws on scholarship and practical experience to ex
plore how strategy, strategic planning, and strategic management have become valuable
concepts to help identify, pursue, and realize important purposes and public values gov
ernments need to uphold. To do so, definitions of strategy, strategizing, strategic plan
ning, and strategic management specifically applied to public administration are first pro
vided and the validity of key criticisms toward these concepts is discussed. Subsequent
sections discuss strategic planning and management in more detail. In the article’s final
section, a number of conclusions and an agenda for future research are offered.
Defining Strategy, Strategizing, Strategic Plan

ning, and Strategic Management
In this section the key terms are broadly defined so that each is portrayed as an approach
to comprehending and addressing challenges within public administration.
Defining Strategy
Strategy may be defined as a concrete approach to aligning the aspirations and the capa
bilities of public organizations or other entities in order to achieve goals and create pub
lic value.
Page 3 of 26
gal Notice).

The definition highlights some important considerations. First, strategies are needed and
emerge in any context where aspirations and capabilities should be aligned. For example,
many authors have discussed successful strategies in the context of complex networks
(Kickert, Klijn, & Koppenjan, 1997) and collaborations (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015). Se
cond, strategy in public administration is not necessarily, or even often, about competitive
advantage. Rather, the main idea underlying strategy is that public organizations and re
lated entities—through their strategies—can actually achieve important goals and, subse
quently, create public value (Moore, 1995). Third, strategy elucidates how aspirations can
be achieved in a given context taking into account current or needed capabilities. The
quality of a strategy should thus be judged by the nature of the aspirations, the capabili
ties needed to meet the aspirations, and how well the aspirations and capabilities are
linked within the given context (Bryson, Ackermann, & Eden, 2007). In other words,
strategies can vary greatly in how well they align aspirations and capabilities.
Taking this argument further, one can identify four broad types of strategists (as individu
als, teams, organizations, collaborations) in public administration: The reactor (low aspi
rations, low capabilities), the dreamer (high aspirations, low capabilities), the under
achiever (low aspirations, high capabilities) and the savvy strategist (high aspirations,
high capabilities). Figure 1 presents this typology, which can be used to help to assess at
a broad-brush level the nature and quality of the strategy of a public-sector entity.
Figure 1. The aspirations-capabilities matrix of strat

egy in public administration.
The reactor is a public organization or other entity that does not really have a strategy. It
has low aspirations and is not focused on developing high capabilities. A reactor is typi
cally a follower awaiting instructions from its institutional environment before acting. Re
search has shown that a reactor strategy is an unlikely pathway to effective public service
performance and can even result in decreased performance (R. Andrews, Boyne, Law, &
Walker, 2012).
Page 4 of 26
gal Notice).

The dreamer is a public organization or other entity that has high aspirations but does not
have or is not developing the capabilities needed to meet these aspirations. Such a strate
gy is unrealistic, and it is unlikely the goals will be achieved. The Europe 2020 strategy,
for instance, has very ambitious targets concerning employment, research and develop
ment, climate change and energy, education, and poverty and social exclusion. While
some progress has been made toward these targets, many are still seemingly unachiev
able by 2020. Moreover, many European member states have not adopted these targets in
their own national policy goals, thus further raising questions concerning the presence of
the needed governance capabilities to achieve Europe 2020 (Drumaux & Joyce, 2018).
The underachiever is a public organization or other entity that has low aspirations despite
having (or being able to develop) high capabilities. Such a strategy is not ambitious and is
unlikely to result in the creation of substantial public value. A potential example may be
found in the policy goals of many Flemish municipalities (Flanders is the northern, Dutch-
speaking part of Belgium). These municipalities were required to formulate policy plans
for the 2014–2019 policy cycle, including a series of priority policy goals (George, 2017).
Many of these goals focused on the bare minimum that needed to be done in specific poli
cy domains to receive funding from the Flemish regional government. An underlying rea
son was blame avoidance: If goals are not too ambitious, surely they can be met, and thus
no one will be held accountable for failing to meet the goals (George, Desmidt, Nielsen, &
Baekgaard, 2017).
The final category is the savvy strategist, a public organization or other entity with both
high aspirations and existing or developing high capabilities. This is likely the preferred
strategy many entities should strive for—meaning an effective alignment of high aspira
tions for goal achievement and the creation of public value and the capabilities potent
enough to actually realize the aspirations.
The Marshal Plan after World War II might be a good example of a savvy strategy. Its am
bitions could not have been higher—the economic recovery and reconstruction of Euro
pean countries torn apart by war—but it ensured the necessary capabilities to back this
up, with a total amount of funds surpassing US$12 billion. The Marshal Plan also resulted
in the foundation of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), still one of the leading international public institutions in public administration,
management, and governance topics. Another example of a savvy strategy is the Dutch
Delta Works, which are praised worldwide as an approach to effective flood prevention.
Again, aspirations were particularly high, namely to protect the Netherlands from floods
due to rising sea levels, and the Dutch government ensured the necessary capabilities, in
cluding major infrastructure investments, to actually achieve this ambitious aspiration.
While the savvy strategy may well be preferred, the three other strategy types are likely
to be more common in public administration. Indeed, a lack of ambition or realism in pub
lic organizations’ strategies is the crux of much popular and academic criticism. For pub
lic administration to fulfill its potential, more savvy strategists are needed.
Page 5 of 26
gal Notice).

Defining Strategizing
Strategies can be deliberately formulated and implemented. They can also emerge in an
unplanned way as desirable patterns form and are recognized after the fact as good
strategies. Finally, they can be realized, which is what happens when what is intended
merges with what is emergent (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 2009). In all three situa
tions, policymakers and other decision-makers are called upon to be good at strategizing.
Strategizing consists of the activities undertaken by public organizations or other

entities to deliberately and emergently (re)align their aspirations and capabilities,
thus exploring how aspirations can actually be achieved within a given context—or
else need to be changed—taking into account current capabilities and the possible
need to develop new capabilities or to change the context.
The definition of strategizing responds to two main confusions regarding strategy in pub
lic administration. First, using the gerund form, strategizing, indicates that strategy is not
something public-sector entities “have”—a reification of strategy—but rather something
they “do”—meaning a practice (Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl, & Vaara, 2015).
What is missing, however, is adequate research on how good strategizing happens

(Höglund, Caicedo, Mårtensson, & Svärdsten, 2018): Which strategy tools were used,
why and how? Who was involved, why and how? What did the actual process look like and
why? That said, research indicates there is no such thing as one best strategy process;
rather, in practice, much variation exists in how public organizations and other entities
strategize. Assessing which variations have the best outcomes in which contexts can help
elucidate why strategy might or might not have worked. Such an approach has also been
labeled as the “configuration school” of strategy (Mintzberg et al., 2009). In short, cri
tiques centered on one specific kind of approach to strategizing in one specific kind of
context are thus not necessarily valid for other approaches in other contexts.
A second confusion arises as a result of strategy’s typically longer-term nature, which can
alter the order of, and blur the distinction between, planning and implementation. Over
time planning can lead implementation, follow it, or blend with it. As noted, strategizing
is both deliberate and emergent. For example, many public organizations’ strategic plans
have a three- to five-year time frame. It is thus easy to argue that strategy is not respon
sive enough to emergent circumstances, yet strategy is not just about what is in strategic
plans. On a regular basis public entities need to ensure their strategies suit current con
ditions. Strategizing is not a “one-off” activity, and it is typically needed whether or not it
results in a long-term strategic plan.
What Makes Strategizing “Strategic”?
What exactly makes public-sector strategizing strategic? All or most of the following fea
tures are typically used to characterize public-sector activities—and planning in particu
lar—as strategic (e.g., Albrechts & Balducci, 2013; Bryson, Edwards, & Van Slyke, 2018;
Page 6 of 26
gal Notice).

Christensen, 1999; Conroy & Berke, 2004; Chakraborty, Kaza, Knaap, & Deal, 2011; Kauf
man & Jacobs, 1987):
• Attention to context and to thinking about how to tailor the strategic approach to the
context, even as a purpose of the effort typically is to change the context in some im
portant way.
• Thinking about purposes and goals, including attention to situational requirements
(e.g., political, legal, administrative, ethical, and environmental requirements).
• An initial focus on a broad agenda and later moving to a more selective action focus.
• An emphasis on systems thinking; that is, working to understand the dynamics of the
overall system being planned for and managed as it functions—or ideally should func
tion—across space and time, including the interrelationships among constituent sub
systems.
• Attention to stakeholders, in effect making strategizing an approach to practical poli
tics; typically multiple levels of government and multiple sectors are explicitly or im
plicitly involved in strategizing.
• A focus on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, and a focus on compet
itive and collaborative advantages.
• A focus on thinking about potential futures and then making decisions in light of
their future consequences—in other words, joining temporal with spatial systemic
thinking.
• Careful attention to implementation; strategy that cannot be operationalized effec
tively is hardly strategic.
• A clear realization that strategies are both deliberately set in advance and emergent
in practice.
• In short, a desire to stabilize what should be stabilized while maintaining appropriate
flexibility in terms of goals, policies, strategies, and processes to manage complexity;
taking advantage of important opportunities; and advancing resilience and sustainabil
ity in the face of an uncertain future.
These characteristics should not be interpreted as some type of formula; instead, they
represent elements of, or principles to guide, good strategizing. They also imply that good
strategizing requires good strategists to carefully consider how these specific character
istics can be operationalized in specific contexts.
Defining Strategic Planning
Strategic planning is a reasonably deliberate and deliberative approach to strategizing by

public organizations or other entities that focuses on strategy formulation and typically
includes (a) analyzing existing mandates, mission, values, and vision; (b) formulating up
dated mission, values, and vision statements; (c) analyzing the internal and external envi
Page 7 of 26
gal Notice).

ronment to identify strategic issues; and (d) formulating concrete and implementable
strategies to address the identified issues.
This definition identifies strategic planning as an approach to strategizing. The approach

is deliberate in the sense that practitioners set out to deliberately, and typically delibera
tively, formulate strategies—which can include embracing emergent strategies—using
strategic planning concepts, processes, procedures, tools, techniques, and practices. The
results are usually—but not necessarily—presented in a strategic plan. This implies that
while there is some formality to the strategic planning process, creativity and innovation
may be emphasized as part of that process (George, Desmidt, Cools, & Prinzie, 2018).
Three main criticisms are often presented as arguments opposing strategic planning’s ef
fectiveness in public administration. First, due to its deliberate nature, strategic planning
inhibits attention to emerging strategies. Second, strategic planning is criticized for be
ing an intraorganizational process that might inhibit interorganizational collaboration.
Third, strategic planning is often linked to the performance management toolbox (and
subsequent goals, indicators, targets, etc.), which can lull practitioners into believing that
strategy is a fixed, quantifiable routine and thereby deaden its potential for fostering ef
fective strategizing.
A meta-analysis of 31 empirical studies (with a total sample of 8,618 organizations) on the

strategic planning–organizational performance relationship demonstrates that most of
these criticisms are not particularly valid (George, Walker, & Monster, 2019). The meta-
analysis shows that strategic planning—in general—has a statistically significant, posi
tive, and moderate impact on organizational performance. This impact becomes particu
larly strong when organizational performance is measured as effectiveness—a finding
which holds across public and private sectors and countries.
Literature reviews also show mostly positive outcomes linked to the adoption of strategic
planning in public organizations (e.g., Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010; George & Desmidt,
2014; Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010). So the argument that strategic planning—when
done well—inhibits an organization’s capacity to detect emerging strategies or offers the
illusion of effectiveness is not particularly grounded in evidence. However, most evidence
so far has focused on strategic planning as a tool for organizations. Whether or not strate
gic planning might also be useful for other entities remains unclear.
Defining Strategic Management
Strategic management is an approach to strategizing by public organizations or other en

tities which integrates strategy formulation and implementation and typically includes
strategic planning to formulate strategies, ways of implementing strategies, and continu
ous strategic learning.
Strategic planning is the basis for strategic management, but the latter is far more en
compassing. Poister (2010) argues that strategic management comprises (a) strategic
planning; (b) budgeting, performance measurement, and management and evaluation
Page 8 of 26
gal Notice).

(ways of implementing); and (c) feedback among these elements to enhance fulfillment of
the mission, the meeting of mandates, and sustained creation of public value via strategic
learning. Strategic management approaches are meant to aid the strategizing efforts of
public leaders and managers to coordinate important decisions across levels and func
tions within an organization and across organizations (Talbot, 2010; Van Dooren, Bouck
aert, & Halligan, 2015). The approaches vary in terms of their comprehensiveness, for
mality, and tightness of control over planning and implementation processes.
This definition also includes an important part of strategic management that often does
not receive enough attention (thus sparking further criticism), namely, continuous strate
gic learning. By including strategic learning, strategic management can ensure that an
organization or other entity periodically and continuously assesses the relevance of its
strategies to determine whether they are working or whether new strategies are emerg
ing or needed (OECD, 2018).
Strategic Planning in More Detail

Differing generic approaches to strategic planning vary in their emphases on process,
content, or both. Regardless of approach, however, applications in practice are likely to
be highly contingent because of the need to take context into account in order to be ap
propriately strategic (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015). For example, approaches are likely to vary
depending on whether it is being applied at the organizational or subunit level, to a
boundary-crossing function or collaboration, or to a community or place. Prominent
generic approaches are discussed, drawing especially from Bryson (2015), Bryson and
Edwards (2017), Bryson et al. (2018), and Ferlie and Ongaro (2015).
More comprehensive process approaches are treated first. These include those influ
enced by the Harvard Policy Model, logical incrementalism, and stakeholder management
approaches. Next, more partial process approaches are considered, including strategic
negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for in
novation. Finally, two content approaches are discussed, namely, portfolio and competi
tive forces analyses.
More Comprehensive Process Approaches
The Harvard Policy Model

The Harvard Policy Model has been a major influence on the most widely used generic
strategic planning processes in the public sector. The purpose of the model is to find the
best fit between a firm or strategic business unit and its environment (K. Andrews, 1980;
Bower, Bartlett, Christensen, & Pearson, 1991). The fit is to be found via analyzing the fo
cal unit’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats; the values of senior manage
ment; and the social obligations of the firm. Planning and implementation are clearly sep
arated conceptually and practically. A senior management team is assumed to be in
Page 9 of 26
gal Notice).

charge of strategy formulation and implementation. No specific advice on how to imple

ment strategies is offered.
Typically a number of adaptation are necessary before the model can be applied to public
organizations or other entities. First, a broader range of stakeholders must be consid
ered. Second, when applied at a broader government-wide level, a portfolio approach of
some kind is also needed. A strategic issues management approach also needs to be
added because articulating and addressing issues are at the heart of much public deci
sion-making. When applied to a collaboration or place, the model needs to be paired with
portfolio, issues management, and stakeholder management approaches because of the
shared-power nature of these contexts.
Public-sector adaptions of the Harvard model all draw on a roughly similar sequence of
activities, while recognizing that following a strict order is often not feasible, necessary,
or desirable (e.g., Bryson, 2018; Nutt & Backoff, 1992). These activities include
• Prepare for strategic planning by determining what elements should be included and
a timeline. Stakeholder analysis is also valuable at this point to identify who is affected
by or should be involved in the process.
• Create, clarify, or update organizational (or another entity’s) mission, vision, values,
and goals. Clarify any legal statutes or mandates that require adherence.
• Assess external and internal environments by analyzing strengths, weaknesses, op
portunities, and threats.
• Identify and analyze issues facing an organization or other entity based on upcoming
changes and/or challenges.
• Identify potential strategies for effectively addressing the issues.
• Assess the feasibility of strategies in terms of technical and administrative workabili
ty, political acceptance, and moral, legal, and ethical justifications.
• Develop implementation plans and plans for related desirable changes.
• Evaluate, monitor, and update the plan continually as new information becomes
available.
• Reassess strategies and the strategic planning process.
Logical Incrementalism
Quinn (1980) argued that formal strategic planning was likely to fail when analysis and
centralization of decision-making were excessive; politics, power, and relationships were
not taken into account; and incrementalism’s benefits in terms of learning and building
consensus were ignored. In contrast, he emphasized the importance of incrementalism
that is guided by overall organizational (or another entity’s) purposes, even as incremen
tal changes on the ground may lead to changing the purposes. The resulting “logical in
crementalism” helps fuse strategic planning and implementation. Quinn sees formal
Page 10 of 26
gal Notice).

strategic planning and logical incrementalism as desirable complements and not as inher
ently antagonistic.
By fusing strategy formulation and implementation, logical incrementalism also joins

strategic planning and strategic management. Logical incrementalism done well can ad
dress complexity and help manage change, incorporate major as well as minor decisions,
incorporate formal and informal process, and be politically realistic. Note as well that in
cremental changes in degree can add up over time into changes in kind.
Public-sector entities can, and likely often do, pursue logical incremental strategies when
they use some sort of strategic planning to establish broad purposes and logical incre
mentalism to reach their goals. Indeed, one study found that organizations that do strate
gic planning improve but do so even more when they also use logical incrementalism
(Poister, Edwards, & Pasha, 2013). Community-level collaborative planning typically
makes use of logical incrementalism. Collaborative goals and arrangements are likely to
emerge in an incremental fashion as organizations individually and collectively explore
their self-interests and possible collaborative advantages, establish collaborative relation
ships, and manage changes incrementally within a shared collaborative framework (Gray
& Purdy, 2018; Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Innes & Booher, 2018).
Stakeholder Management
Strategy can be understood in part as the way an organization or other entity relates to
its stakeholders. Freeman (1984) defines a stakeholder as any individual, group, organi
zation, or other entity that is affected by, or that can affect, the organization’s strategic
future. In his view and that of others, a strategy will only be effective if it satisfies the
needs of multiple groups (Ackermann & Eden, 2011; Gomes, Liddle, & Gomes, 2010;
Walker et al., 2010). Stakeholder management is highly relevant in the public sector be
cause of the many groups that have stakes in public organizations, functions, collabora
tions, and communities and because the approach incorporates economic, political, and
social concerns. Beyond that, some forms of stakeholder engagement (e.g., citizen partici
pation or open comment periods) may be mandated as part of government decision-mak
ing processes (Brody, Godschalk, & Burby, 2003; Buckwalter, 2014). Successful use of the
model assumes that key decision-makers can achieve reasonable agreement about who
the key stakeholders are and what the response to their claims should be.
Note, however, the difference between taking stakeholders’ interests and concerns seri
ously and actually engaging them in strategic planning (Quick & Feldman, 2011). While
some studies indicate that greater participation in strategic planning leads to better per
formance, at least in collaborative settings (e.g., Lee, McGuire, & Kim, 2018), a meta-
analysis of the impact of strategic planning on organizational performance indicates that
participation per se does not significantly increase performance, and practitioners should
carefully assess how they will organize participation (George et al., 2019)
The strengths of the stakeholder model are its recognition of the many claims—both com
plementary and competing—placed on organizations or other entities by insiders and out
Page 11 of 26
gal Notice).

siders and its awareness of the need to satisfy at least the key stakeholders. The ap
proach can be particularly useful in planning for cross-boundary functions, such as trans
portation (Neshkova & Guo, 2012; Poister et al., 2013), collaborations (Deyle & Wieden
man, 2014), and planning for places (Brody et al., 2003; Edelenbos & Klijn, 2005), which
all involve multiple stakeholders.
Partial Process Approaches
Strategic Negotiations
Strategy often results, at least in part, from the partial resolution of organizational issues
through negotiations. Allison (1971) and Pettigrew (1973) pioneered the resulting strate
gic negotiations process approach. Governance increasingly involves negotiations
through a variety of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial processes that include community
visioning processes to create political mandates (that can provide the overall direction
component of logical incrementalism), negotiated rule-making, and environmental dis
pute resolution (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O’Leary, 2005; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015).
The use of negotiations acknowledges that power is shared in many public situations and
that cooperation and negotiation are required in order to reach agreements. Those agree
ments, however, may be subject to questions about the technical quality, process legitima
cy, and democratic responsibility of results (Page, Stone, Bryson, & Crosby, 2014). Inter
estingly, Innes and Booher (2018) find that negotiations can result in rational, politically
acceptable, and implementable solutions, even though the negotiation process itself looks
very messy.
Strategic Issues Management

The Harvard model skipped an important step between the SWOT analysis and strategy
formulation: the identification of strategic issues as part of the strategic planning process
and less comprehensive annual reviews. Direct attention to issues is important for many
public organizations or other entities, because their agendas often consist of issues that
should be managed strategically (Ackermann & Eden, 2011). As a result, many organiza
tions make use of strategic issue management processes actually separated from annual
strategic planning processes, since important issues emerge too quickly to be handled as
part of an annual or less frequent process. The approach also applies to functions, collab
orations, or communities, as long as there is a group able to address and manage the is
sue or issues.
The approach’s strength is its ability to articulate and analyze key issues quickly. A weak
ness is that it does not offer specific advice on exactly how to frame the issues other than
to precede their identification with a situational analysis of some sort. Nutt and Backoff
(1992) and Bryson, Cunningham, and Lokkesmoe (2002) have perhaps gone the furthest
in remedying this defect within the context of public strategic planning.
Page 12 of 26
gal Notice).

Strategic Planning as a Framework for Innovation

Other approaches use strategic planning—though it is typically called something else,
such as design—as a chance to innovate and provide creative solutions for upcoming chal
lenges (Ansell & Torfing, 2014; Bason, 2014; Osborne & Brown, 2012). These approaches
rely on many of the same components of the other approaches such as stakeholder analy
sis and issues management. What differentiates these approaches is their emphasis on
fostering innovation and creating a more entrepreneurial culture within the organization.
Unfortunately, pursuing innovation can be difficult in public entities with fewer resources
to test approaches or less room to make potentially costly mistakes (Bason, 2017). In ad
dition, public entities are often wary of risking failure in a visible way in a context where
rewards for trying and for learning from failure are less likely than punishment.
Only a few researchers have considered the connection between strategic planning and
public-sector innovation. R. Andrews et al. (2012) found that “organizations that empha
size a strategy of innovation get an even higher payoff when they fit this strategy to a
process characterized by flexibility and negotiation with powerful stakeholders [i.e., logi
cal incrementalism]” (p. 155). Another exception is Borins (2014), who in a large-scale
study of successful public-sector innovations found a strong reliance on strategic plan
ning (what he calls “comprehensive planning”) by the innovators, rather than “groping
along,” which is Behn’s (1988) term for a manager-focused (rather than organization-fo
cused) version of logical incrementalism. The relationship was contingent, however, on
who the innovators were and whether new technology was involved. If the innovators
were managers, planning was favored; if the innovators were front-line staff, groping
along was preferred. If new technology was involved, groping along was used more fre
quently.
Content Approaches
The process approaches assist planners with ways of doing strategic planning but offer
little advice as to what needs to be in strategies and plans. Strategic content approaches
help identify strategies that provide the best fit between the internal and external condi
tions of an organization or other entity but do not pay attention to process concerns. Two
of these are discussed in more detail: portfolio approaches and competitive analysis.
Portfolio Approaches
These approaches are meant to help assess and manage a “portfolio” of entities of some
sort (e.g., departments, programs, projects, budget items) in a strategic way. The portfo
lio arrays the entities against dimensions (usually two) deemed to be of strategic signifi
cance (e.g., the attractiveness of doing something vs. the capability of doing it). The re
sulting matrix helps users understand what kinds of issues they face with the different en
tities and what kinds of decisions they may need to make. Unfortunately, even though
many public organizations or other entities at least implicitly make use of portfolio ap
proaches, hardly any study exists that evaluates use of the approach in a public-sector
strategic planning context.
Page 13 of 26
gal Notice).

Competitive Analysis
Many public or quasi-public entities are clearly in competitive environments (Hansen &
Ferlie, 2016). For example, services in most countries often have to compete with private
businesses for customers. As a result, competitive analyses can be helpful as part of de
termining some of what should be in a strategic plan.
Vining (2011) adapted a private sector five-forces model (Porter, 1998) for the public sec
tor by adding political and economic considerations that are more appropriate for the
public sector. Vining emphasizes that public organizations need some autonomy in order
to have enough control over strategy to perform well. He hypothesizes that autonomy de
pends on a modified set of Porter’s five forces. These include the power of agency spon
sors/customers, the power of suppliers, the threat of substitute products, political influ
ence, and the intensity of rivalry between agencies. The usefulness of the model has not
been extensively tested. Hansen and Ferlie (2016) argue that the usefulness of these
analyses will be higher to the degree that there is administrative autonomy, performance-
based budgets are being used, and market-like conditions are present.
In sum, strategic planning is not a single thing but is instead a set of concepts, processes,
procedures, tools, techniques, and practices (Bryson, 2018; Höglund et al., 2018). Gener
ic approaches should be applied contingently in particular settings in order to produce
useful outcomes. Indeed, hybrid applications that blend approaches are often found
(Bryson, 2018; Favoreu, Carassus, Gardey, & Maurel, 2015).
Strategic Management in More Detail

Like strategic planning, strategic management consists of a family of generic approaches
that in practice must be adapted to specific contexts in a contingent fashion (Ferlie & On
garo, 2015). Strategic management approaches attempt to create a system for managing
a public organization or other entity strategically. Each strategic management system em
bodies a set of arrangements that empower particular actors, make particular kinds of is
sues more likely to arise, and favor particular kinds of strategies.
Strategic management systems are attempts to coordinate aspects of decision-making

across levels and functions and to concentrate on whether the entity is implementing its
strategies and accomplishing its mission. Relatively formal and comprehensive strategic
management systems are used by some kinds of public entities, such as hospitals, police
and fire departments, and the military. The U.S. federal government is moving toward a
reasonably comprehensive formal system (Moynihan, 2013). Early assessments of the rou
tines built into the new system show they do increase performance information use and
learning (Moynihan & Kroll, 2016). However, most government entities, including those
for collaborations and places, typically use less comprehensive, less formal, and more de
centralized systems that focus on a few goals and issues, rely on a decision process in
which politics play a major role, and control something other than program outcomes
(e.g., budget expenditures, contracting processes, etc.; Bryson, 2018).
Page 14 of 26
gal Notice).

There appear to be six main types of systems, though any strategic management system
in practice probably will be a hybrid of the six types, which can be labeled a seventh type
(Bryson, 2018; Bryson & Edwards, 2017). The types, or designs, thus refer to dominant
tendencies, which are
￭ Integrated units of management approach (or layered or stacked units of manage

ment approach)
￭ Strategic issues management approach
￭ Contract approach
￭ Collaboration approach
○ Lead organization
○ Shared governance
○ Network administrative organization
￭ Portfolio management approach

￭ Goal or benchmark approach
￭ Hybrid approach
Integrated Units of Management Approach (or Layered or Stacked

Units of Management Approach)
The purpose of this approach is to link inside and outside environments through an inte
grated set of strategies across levels and functions of the organization or other entity.
Public entities have used variants of this approach to their advantage (Poister, Aristigue
ta, & Hall, 2015; Van Dooren et al., 2015). Keep in mind that it is precisely this sort of sys
tem that is most prone to driving out strategic thought and action when it is excessively
formal and also underpinned by a belief that the future can actually be predicted accu
rately—a belief detached from the messiness of operational reality (Mintzberg et al.,
2009). Such systems are likely to be blindsided by unpredictable events. Therefore, they
must be used with caution because they can take on a life of their own, promote incre
mental change when major change might be needed, and serve the interests only of the
planners who staff them and the leaders and managers who wish to resist—not promote—
major change.
Strategic Issues Management Approach
Strategic issues management systems are the most common form of institutionalized
strategic management systems in public organizations or other entities. These systems do
not attempt to integrate strategies across levels and functions to the extent that integrat
ed units of management approaches do. The reason is that the various issues are likely to
be on different time frames, involve different constituencies and politics, and need not be
considered in the light of all other issues. CitiStat or PerformanceStat systems are exam
Page 15 of 26
gal Notice).

ples (Behn, 2008), though typically they are focused mostly on operational rather than
strategic issues. In these systems, a central analysis staff uses data (often geographically
coded) to spot trends, events, and issues that need to be addressed by line departments.
The heads of the relevant units meet regularly with the mayor or chief executive and his
or her key advisers to examine the data and address the issues face to face. Actions and
follow-up procedures are agreed upon on the spot. In general, in cities using these sys
tems better outcomes were produced, money was saved, teamwork and competence were
enhanced, or all three occurred.
Contract Approach
The contract approach is another popular system of institutionalizing strategic manage

ment, especially in simple to moderately complex shared-power environments. The con
tract model is employed for much of the planning and delivery of publicly financed social
services in the United States via either public or nonprofit service providers (Sandfort &
Moulton, 2015). The system is also used to institutionalize strategic management in
school districts with site-based management. In this system, a center establishes strate
gic objectives for the jurisdiction, organization, or entity as a whole; negotiates contracts
with individual units of management; monitors performance; and ensures the integrity of
the system.
At its best, this approach allows both the center and the individual units to focus on what
is important for them—both are empowered to do their jobs better. In such a system, the
center establishes a strategic plan and each unit has a complementary plan. Problems
may arise when the center has trouble acquiring adequate information, incentives are not
properly aligned, the center has difficulties in exercising control when faced with a large
number of contractors, and units invest inadequately because they cannot be sure of a
long-term contract.
Collaboration Approach
Collaboration represents a fourth type of strategic management system. Like contracting,

collaboration is increasingly being used to govern and manage in shared-power, multior
ganizational environments. In fact, the contract system represents a classic form of col
laboration, but many different (and often more complicated) approaches to collaboration
are more suitable for situations involving moderate to high levels of complexity and ambi
guity (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015; Klijn, Steijn, & Edelenbos, 2010).
Collaboration involves varying degrees of sharing power and resources between units to
achieve common ends that could not be achieved separately. The gain beyond what could
be achieved separately is called collaborative advantage (Huxham & Vangen, 2005), and
the often elusive pursuit of this advantage is behind persistent calls for more collabora
tion. Three different archetypal approaches to network collaboration are considered
(Provan & Kenis, 2009): the lead organization, shared governance, and network adminis
trative organizations.
Page 16 of 26
gal Notice).

In the lead organization approach, a single partner organization coordinates the major
collaboration activities and key decisions. Milward and Provan (2003), in their longitudi
nal study of mental health service delivery networks, found that network effectiveness is
greatest when there is a strong central integrating unit, clear and consistent lines of au
thority and accountability embodied in contracts, aligned incentives that give everyone a
stake in the success of the network, system stability, and munificent resources. These fac
tors allow constructive norms, social capital, and network learning capabilities to develop
and needed incremental investments and changes to be made.
The contracts in these situations are what economists call relational contracts, as op
posed to competitive contracts. Relational contracting involves infrequent rebidding and
focuses on maintaining an effective relationship between buyer and seller—because there
are only a few sellers to begin with, the production function is ambiguous, and effective
performance by the seller depends on trust, collaboration, and long-term investment in
the network’s infrastructure.
A key system concern with the lead organization approach is how to achieve the right bal
ance between network stability and adaptability. Provan and Milward (1995; see also Mil
ward & Provan, 2000) found that the highest performing mental health networks were
the most stable in the sense that there were no significant changes in any structural fea
ture or funding relationships. On the one hand, stability allows the all-important trust,
shared norms, expertise, productive relationships, learning by doing, and long-term in
vestments to occur. On the other hand, if a network is too stable, learning and responsive
ness to environmental changes will diminish and the network will be unlikely to respond
effectively to unexpected changes (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015).
The shared governance approach is likely when no partner has significantly greater pow
er and resources than the others and no external governance organization is formed or
mandated. The viability of the approach depends on each organization’s involvement and
commitment as the partners are responsible for managing the internal and external rela
tions. Viability also depends on reasonable goal consensus, since exit is usually an option
for member organizations. If the number of organizations participating in shared gover
nance becomes too large, trust levels decline, goal consensus becomes shaky, and the col
laborators have limited collaboration abilities, they may create a separate administrative
entity—a network administrative organization (NAO)—to govern the collaboration and its
activities and decision. In their study of 39 networks, Raab, Mannak, and Cambré (2015)
found that effective networks are centrally integrated, have been in existence for at least
three years, and show a high degree of stability. They also either have substantial re
sources available or they have an NAO.
Portfolio Management Approach
In the portfolio management approach, entities of various sorts (programs, projects, prod
ucts, services, or providers) are arrayed against dimensions that have some strategic im
portance. The dimensions usually consist of the attractiveness or desirability of the entity
Page 17 of 26
gal Notice).

(from high to low) and the capability of the organization or community to deliver what is
needed (also from high to low). Portfolio methods are quite flexible in that any dimension
of interest may be arrayed against another with entities mapped on to the resulting ma
trix. Portfolio methods also can be used at sub- and supraorganizational levels to assess
options against strategically important factors (Bryson & Edwards, 2017). Unfortunately,
few public and nonprofit organizations or other entities utilize portfolio models in a for
mal way, even though many use them informally. The problem with using this method in a
formal way, of course, is that it creates comparisons that may be troubling for politically
powerful actors.
Goal or Benchmark Approach
In general, the goal or benchmark approach is generally applied at the community, re
gional, or state level. It is designed to gain reasonable agreement on overarching goals,
indicators, or benchmarks toward which relatively independent groups, units, or organi
zations might then direct their energies. This consensual agreement on goals and indica
tors can function somewhat like the corporate control exercised in integrative models
though it is, of course, weaker.
This system’s looseness means that calling it a strategic management system may be an
overstatement. Nonetheless, when agreement can be reached and support for implemen
tation can be generated, this approach can work reasonably well. Plus, in the fragmented,
shared-power environments in which most public problems occur, the approach may be
the only viable one. For example, most community strategic plans are implemented via
goal or benchmark models (Bryson & Schively Slotterback, 2017). Typically, large num
bers of leaders and citizens are involved in the process of goal-setting and strategy devel
opment. Then action plans outline what each organization might do to implement the
strategies and achieve the goals on a voluntary basis. Collective impact models (Kania &
Kramer, 2011) may be classified as a kind of goal or benchmark approach, though by
adding a “backbone organization,” a kind of NAO, they blend with collaboration ap
proaches.
Another variant of the approach might make use of principles rather than goals. This ap
proach would be applicable in very complex situations where the challenges are adaptive,
not simply technical; many organizations are involved, affected, or have some partial re
sponsibility to act; power is shared; there are many feedback effects; goals and cause–ef
fect relations are at best unclear; and technologies are at best unproven. Bottom-up adap
tive management is necessary, and strategy will be emergent based on innovation, rapid
prototyping, and ongoing learning (Eoyang & Holladay, 2013). Principles can help guide
the rapid prototyping and adaptive learning required to make progress and figure out
what viable solution models are because they do not already exist. Developmental evalua
tion is needed to help inform the learning (Patton, 2010). Examples of such systems in
practice may be found in Patton, McKegg, and Wehipeihana (2015).
Page 18 of 26
gal Notice).

The final type of strategic management system consists of the hybrid approaches. As sug
gested earlier, any actual system is likely to be a hybrid of all six types.
Conclusion
This article presents key elements of strategic management in public administration:
strategy, strategizing, strategic planning, and strategic management. Criticisms of these
elements were also discussed and an overview of different generic types of strategic plan
ning and strategic management systems was provided that might be useful as public or
ganizations or other entities seek to address challenges in such a way that important
goals are achieved and public value is created.
Strategic planning and management are approaches to identifying and addressing chal
lenges. It is important to remember neither is a single invariant thing but is instead a set
of concepts, processes, procedures, tools, techniques, and practices (and structures in
the case of strategic management systems) that must be drawn on selectively and adapt
ed thoughtfully—strategically—to specific contexts if they are to help produce desirable
results. While there are a variety of generic approaches to both, the boundaries among
them are not necessarily clear, and strategic planning and management in practice are
typically hybridic.
Research is accumulating about which approaches to strategic planning and management

work under which circumstances, how, and why, but there is still a long way to go (Bryson
et al., 2010; Bryson et al., 2018; George et al., 2019; Poister et al., 2010). A number of
suggestions are presented to help guide future research:
First, researchers should clearly define what they mean by strategy, strategic, strategiz
ing, strategic planning, and strategic management. This will help clarify contributions
and enable better comparisons and contrasts among results. Second, greater understand
ing is needed of the social mechanisms that enable strategic planning and management
to work, or not (Mayntz, 2004). Third, research should unravel the ways in which strate
gy, strategizing, strategic planning, and strategic management can be useful, or not, to
public entities that are not formal organizations. For instance, how can these concepts
help collaborations, networks, or communities perform better? Which adaptations are
needed? Do these in turn influence the strategies of the entities involved? These ques
tions remain largely unanswered.
Fourth, more attention to capabilities and competencies is needed, especially in relation

to aspirations (Bryson et al., 2007). How best can competencies, capabilities, and aspira
tions be measured? Can one also link these to performance antecedents, processes, and
outcomes? How can a public entity move from being a reactor, dreamer, or underachiever
toward being a savvy strategist?
Finally, a search for effective configurations of situations and approaches to strategic

planning and management should be pursued. In other words, what hybrid forms of
Page 19 of 26
gal Notice).

strategic planning and management are most effective in which contexts? But recall as
well that strategic planning and management are but two general approaches to strate
gizing. Are other approaches present in practice that are being unduly neglected? And
how might these other approaches be made more effective, or not, by incorporating or
adapting approaches to strategic planning and management?
In sum, while a great deal is already known about strategic planning and management in
public administration, there is much work to be done on this important topic, and future
public administration scholars should feel encouraged to engage with this timely issue.
Given the widespread use of public-sector strategic planning and management, additional
insight into exactly what works best, in which situations, and why, is likely to be helpful
for advancing public purposes.
Acknowledgment
Parts of this article draw from John M. Bryson and Lauren Hamilton Edwards’ article
“Strategic Planning in the Public Sector” in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Busi
ness and Management (see Bryson & Edwards, 2017).
References
Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Making strategy: Mapping out strategic success. Thou
sand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Albrechts, L., & Balducci, A. (2013). Practicing strategic planning: In search of critical
features to explain the strategic character of plans. disP—The Planning Review, 49(3), 16–
27.
Allison, G. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston, MA:
Little Brown.
Andrews, K. (1980). The concept of corporate strategy (rev. ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., Law, J., & Walker, R. M. (2012). Strategic management and
public service performance. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2014). Public innovation through collaboration and design.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Bason, C. (2017). Leading public design. Bristol, U.K.: Policy Press.
Bason, C. (Ed.). (2014). Design for policy. Burlington, VT: Gower.
Behn, R. D. (1988). Management by groping along. Journal of Policy Analysis and Man
agement, 7(4), 643–663.
Page 20 of 26
gal Notice).

Behn, R. D. (2008). Designing “PerformanceStat.” Public Performance and Management

Review, 32(2), 206–235.
Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and
processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Ad
ministration Review, 65(5), 547–558.
Borins, S. (2014). The persistence of innovation in government. Washington, DC: Brook

ings Institution.
Bower, J., Bartlett, C., Christensen, C., & Pearson, J. (1991). Business policy: Texts and
cases (7th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R., & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating citizen participation in
plan making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 69(3), 245–264.
Bryson, J. M. (2015). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. In J. D.

Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.,
Vol. 23, pp. 515–521). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.
Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organization (5th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2007). Putting the resource-based view of strat
egy and distinctive competencies to work in public organizations. Public Administration
Review, 67(4), 702–717.
Bryson, J. M., Berry, F. S., & Yang, K. (2010). The state of strategic management research:
A selective literature review and set of future directions. American Review of Public Ad
ministration, 40(5), 495–521.
Bryson, J. M., Cunningham, G. L., & Lokkesmoe, K. J. (2002). What to do when stakehold
ers matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American Men Project of
Hennepin County, Minnesota. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 568–584.
Bryson, J. M., & Edwards, L. H. (2017). Strategic planning in the public sector. In R.
Aldag (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of business and management. Oxford, U.K.: Ox
ford University Press.
Bryson, J. M., Edwards, L. H., & Van Slyke, D. (2018). Getting strategic about strategic
planning research. Public Management Review, 20(3), 317–339.
Bryson, J. M., & Schively Slotterback, C. (2017). Strategic spatial planning in the USA. In
L. Albrechts, A. Balducci, & J. Hillier (Eds.), Situated practices of strategic planning. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Page 21 of 26
gal Notice).

Buckwalter, N. D. (2014). The potential for public empowerment through government-or

ganized participation. Public Administration Review, 74(5), 573–584.
Chakraborty, A., Kaza, N., Knaap, G., & Deal, B. (2011). Robust plans and contingent
plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 77(3), 251–266.
Christensen, K. S. (1999). Cities and complexity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Conroy, M. M., & Berke, P. R. (2004). What makes a good sustainable development plan?
An analysis of factors that influence principles of sustainable development. Environment
and Planning A, 36(8), 1381–1396.
Deyle, R., & Wiedenman, R. E. (2014). Collaborative planning by metropolitan planning

organizations: A test of a causal theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
34(3), 257–275.
Drumaux, A., & Joyce, P. (2018). Strategic management for public governance in Europe.
London, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2005). Managing stakeholder involvement in decision mak
ing: A comparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 417–446.
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative management regimes. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Eoyang, G., & Holladay, S. J. (2013). Adaptive action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Favoreu, C., Carassus, D., Gardey, D., & Maurel, C. (2015). Performance management in
the local public sector in France: An administrative rather than a political model. Interna
tional Review of Administrative Science, 81(4), 672–693.
Ferlie, E., & Ongaro, E. (2015). Strategic management in public sector organizations:
Concepts, schools, and contemporary issues. New York, NY: Routledge.
Freedman, L. (2013). Strategy: A History. New York: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA:

Pittman.
Gaddis, J. L. (2018). On grand strategy. New York, NY: Penguin.
George, B. (2017). Does strategic planning “work” in public organizations? Insights from
Flemish municipalities. Public Money & Management, 37(7), 527–530.
George, B., & Desmidt, S. (2014). A state of research on strategic management in the
public sector: An analysis of the empirical evidence. In P. Joyce & A. Drumaux (Eds.),
Page 22 of 26
gal Notice).

Strategic management in public organizations: European practices and perspectives (pp.

151–172). New York, NY: Routledge.
George, B., Desmidt, S., Cools, E., & Prinzie, A. (2018). Cognitive styles, user acceptance
and commitment to strategic plans in public organizations: An empirical analysis. Public
Management Review, 20(3), 340–359.
George, B., Desmidt, S., Nielsen, P. A., & Baekgaard, M. (2017). Rational planning and
politicians’ preferences for spending and reform: Replication and extension of a survey
experiment. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1251–1271.
George, B., Walker, R. M., & Monster, J. (2019). Does strategic planning improve orga
nizational performance? A meta-analysis. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 810–
819.
Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (2015). Cambridge handbook of strategy
as practice. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Gomes, R. C., Liddle, J., & Gomes, L. O. M. (2010). A five-sided model of stakeholder influ
ence: A cross-national analysis of decision making in local government. Public Manage
ment Review, 12(5), 701–724.
Gray, B., & Purdy, J. M. (2018). Collaborating for our future. New York, NY: Oxford Univer
sity Press.
Hansen, J. R., & Ferlie, E. (2016). Applying strategic management theories in public sec
tor organizations: Developing a typology. Public Management Review, 18(1), 1–19.
Höglund, L., Caicedo, M. H., Mårtensson, M., & Svärdsten, F. (2018). Strategic manage
ment in the public sector: How tools enable and constrain strategy making. International
Public Management Journal, 21(5), 822–849.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate. New York, NY: Routledge.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. (2018). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collabora
tive rationality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011, Winter). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Re
view, pp. 36–41.
Kaufman, J. L., & Jacobs, H. M. (1987). A planning perspective on strategic planning.

Journal of American Planning Association, 53(1), 23–33.
Kickert, W. J., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (1997). Managing complex networks: Strate
gies for the public sector. London, U.K.: SAGE.
Klijn, E. H., Steijn, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2010). The impact of network management on out
comes in governance networks. Public Administration, 88(4), 1063–1082.
Page 23 of 26
gal Notice).

Lee, D., McGuire, M., & Kim, J. H. (2018). Collaboration, strategic plans, and government
performance: The case of efforts to reduce homelessness. Public Management Review,
20(3), 360–376.
Mayntz, R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of

the Social Sciences, 34(2), 237–259.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). How networks are governed. In C. J. Heinrich & L.
E. Lynn (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives (pp. 238–262). Washing
ton, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2003). Managing the hollow state. Public Administration
Review, 5(1), 1–18.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (2009). Strategy safari (2nd ed.). Philadelphia,
PA: Trans-Atlantic Publications.
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moynihan, D. P. (2013). The new federal performance management system: Implementing

the Government Performance Modernization Act. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the
Business of Government.
Moynihan, D. P., & Kroll, A. (2016). Performance management routines that work?
An early assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act. Public Management Review,
76(2).
Neshkova, M. I., & Guo, H. (2012). Public participation and organizational performance.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 267–288.
Nutt, P. C., & Backoff, R. W. (1992). Strategic management of public and third sector or
ganizations: A handbook for leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Developing schools as

learning organisations in Wales. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (2012). Managing public-sector innovation (2nd ed.). London,
U.K.: Routledge.
Page, S. B., Stone, M. M., Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2014). Public value creation by
cross-sector collaborations: A theory and challenges of assessment. Public
Administration, 93(3), 715–732.
Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Patton, M. Q., McKegg, K., & Wehipeihana, N. (2015). Developmental evaluation exem
plars: Principles in practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Page 24 of 26
gal Notice).

Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London, U.K.: Tavis
tock.
Poister, T. H. (2010). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strate
gic management and performance. Public Administration Review, 70(Suppl. 1), s246–
s254.
Poister, T. H., Aristigueta, M. P., & Hall, J. L. (2015). Managing and measuring perfor
mance in public and nonprofit organizations: An integrated approach. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley.
Poister, T. H., Edwards, L. H., & Pasha, O. (2013). The impact of strategic planning on or
ganizational outcomes. Public Performance and Management Review, 36(4), 585–615.
Poister, T. H., Pitts, D., & Edwards, L. H. (2010). Strategic management research in the
public sector: Synthesis, assessment, and future directions. American Review of Public
Administration, 40(4), 522–545.
Porter, M. (1998). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.

New York, NY: Free Press.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2009). Modes of network governance: Structure, management,
and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 229–252.
Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational net

work effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Ad
ministrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1–33.
Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Distinguishing participation and inclusion. Journal
of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 272–290.
Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Raab, J., Mannak, R. S., & Cambré, B. (2015). Combining structure, governance and con
text: A configurational approach to network effectiveness. Journal of Public Administra
tion Research and Theory, 25(2), 479–511.
Sandfort, J., & Moulton, S. (2015). Effective implementation in practice: Integrating pub
lic policy and management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Talbot, C. (2010). Theories of performance: Organizational and service improvement in

the public domain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2015). Performance management in the
public sector (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Vining, A. R. (2011). Public agency external analysis using a modified “five forces” frame
work. International Public Management Journal, 14(1), 63–105.
Page 25 of 26
gal Notice).

Walker, Richard M., Rhys Andrews, George A. Boyne, Kenneth J. Meier, & Laurence J.
O’Toole, Jr. (2010). Wakeup Call: Strategic Management, Network Alarms, and Perfor
mance. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 731–741.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley.
Notes:
(1.) The original quote was in Dutch and was part of a management presentation given by
van Gaal. Available online.
John Bryson
Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota
Bert George
Department of Public Governance and Management, Ghent University
Page 26 of 26
gal Notice).
View publication stats

Strategic Management in Public Administration PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic Management in Public Administration PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strategic Management in Public Administration PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Strategic Management in Public Administration

Chapter · January 2020

John Bryson Bert George

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Goal Theory View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Strategic Management in Public Administration

Summary and Keywords

Strategic management is an approach to strategizing by public organizations or other en­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Strategic planning can be defined as a deliberate approach to strategy formulation and

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Defining Strategy, Strategizing, Strategic Plan­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Figure 1. The aspirations-capabilities matrix of strat­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Strategizing consists of the activities undertaken by public organizations or other

What is missing, however, is adequate research on how good strategizing happens

What Makes Strategizing “Strategic”?

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Defining Strategic Planning

Strategic planning is a reasonably deliberate and deliberative approach to strategizing by

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

This definition identifies strategic planning as an approach to strategizing. The approach

A meta-analysis of 31 empirical studies (with a total sample of 8,618 organizations) on the

Defining Strategic Management

Strategic management is an approach to strategizing by public organizations or other en­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Strategic Planning in More Detail

More Comprehensive Process Approaches

The Harvard Policy Model

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

charge of strategy formulation and implementation. No specific advice on how to imple­

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

By fusing strategy formulation and implementation, logical incrementalism also joins

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Partial Process Approaches

Strategic Issues Management

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Strategic Planning as a Framework for Innovation

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Strategic Management in More Detail

Strategic management systems are attempts to coordinate aspects of decision-making

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

￭ Integrated units of management approach (or layered or stacked units of manage­

￭ Portfolio management approach

Integrated Units of Management Approach (or Layered or Stacked

Strategic Issues Management Approach

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

The contract approach is another popular system of institutionalizing strategic manage­

Collaboration represents a fourth type of strategic management system. Like contracting,

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Portfolio Management Approach

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Goal or Benchmark Approach

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 April 2020

Research is accumulating about which approaches to strategic planning and management

Strategic management is an approach to strategizing by public organizations or other en

Defining Strategy, Strategizing, Strategic Plan

Figure 1. The aspirations-capabilities matrix of strat

Strategic management is an approach to strategizing by public organizations or other en

charge of strategy formulation and implementation. No specific advice on how to imple

￭ Integrated units of management approach (or layered or stacked units of manage

The contract approach is another popular system of institutionalizing strategic manage

Borins, S. (2014). The persistence of innovation in government. Washington, DC: Brook

Buckwalter, N. D. (2014). The potential for public empowerment through government-or

Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational net